State v. Hunter

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 2311009640
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) ID No. 2311009640 ) MARION P. HUNTER, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

On this 27th day of May, 2026, upon consideration of Marion P. Hunter’s

(“Defendant”) pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence (the “Motion”) made pursuant to

Superior Court Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 35(b),1 the sentence imposed

upon Defendant, and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:

1. On November 3, 2025, Defendant pleaded guilty to Rape Fourth

Degree.2

2. On January 23, 2026, the Court sentenced Defendant to thirteen years

and six months of Level V time, suspended after three years for six months at Level

IV DOC Discretion, followed by decreasing levels of probation.3 The Court

1 Docket Item (hereinafter “D.I.”) 14 (hereinafter “Mot.”). 2 D.I. 13. 3 Effective July 8, 2025, Defendant was sentenced to thirteen years and six months at Supervision Level V, suspended after three years months for six months at Level IV (DOC Discretion), followed by three years at Level III (GPS), to be held at Level V until space available at Level IV, and held at Level IV (DOC Discretion) until space available at Level III (GPS). D.I. 15. modified this sentence on January 29, 2026, adding a condition that Defendant have

no contact with the victim, her family, or her residence.4

3. On February 27, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Motion requesting

that the Court reduce his unsuspended Level V sentence from three to two years and

reduce or alter various elements of his probation.5 The bases for this request are

Defendant’s health problems, disability, prior completion of sexual disorder

treatment programs,6 his desire to stop rehashing the past, his published work, an

upcoming patent, and his acceptance of responsibility for his harms. 7

4. The Court considers motions for modification of sentence under Rule

35(b). Before addressing the merits of a motion, the Court first considers the

applicable procedural bars. 8 There are no applicable procedural bars, and thus the

Court considers the Motion on the merits.

5. The Motion is denied. Defendant’s sentence was appropriate at the time

of sentencing. Indeed, the duration of the Level V, Level IV, and Level III terms, as

well as the requirements for GPS monitoring and sexual disorder treatment are all

appropriate transition sentences that are integral to the Court’s overall “sentencing

4 D.I. 15. 5 Mot. p. 2–3. 6 The Court is also in receipt of Defendant’s additional filing enclosing his certificates of achievement and enrollment information. See D.I. 16. 7 Id. 8 State v. Redden, 111 A.3d 602, 606 (Del. Super. 2015). 2 scheme” or “plan.”9 The Court imposed the sentence—including these express

elements—after a thorough review of the crimes committed and the sentencing

information available on the record. Although the Court applauds and encourages

Defendant’s rehabilitative efforts, the Court declines to recalibrate an appropriate

sentence on the bases provided.

6. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Sentence Reduction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheldon K. Rennie, Judge

9 Id. at 609. 3